NOW He's the President Elect

[elfs]

You know, it's actually annoyed me somewhat that the press has been referring to Barack Obama as the "president-elect." It's especially annoyed me (and made me wonder about the legality) that he's been acting from the Office of the President Elect (which is, in fact, a real office, created by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963).

Until the electoral college met, he was the president-designate. Now, as of 3:00pm yesterday, he's the president-elect.

Is this just nit-picking? I mean, it's a matter of law, isn't it?

Comments

[blaisepascal]

Yup, it's a matter of law, now that you bring it up.

I'd like to point out, to begin with, that while the Electoral college has met, and voted, the votes have not been tallied officially yet. So if he wasn't the President-Elect two days ago, why should he be now?

But here's the law you cite, The Presidential Transition Act of 1963, Section 3(c):

The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2.

So as far as that act goes, Mr. Obama was the President-elect following the general elections, not after the Electoral College vote.

[blaisepascal]

I'd like to state that while I tend to overindulge in nit-picking, I think a self-acknowledged nit-picking post is reasonably fair-game for nitpicking.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Hmph. Who knew? I was thinking along the lines in your second graf myself...

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Elf, it's not officially official until the Senate meets and counts the votes cast. Somebody could challenge the vote. (I watched'em try in 2000...) Now, the odds of somebody actually getting away with such a challenge and allowing President Shoe's partymate to usurp things is pretty damn slim.... but still.

[kengr]

I suspect that McCain officially conceding the election has had a majot influence on the likelihood of anybody else trying to challenge (aside from the "Obama isn't a natural-born-citizen" nutjobs)

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Gore conceded too, albeit well after the fact, and they still tried to challenge it. Gore correctly gaveled it down - the congresscritter did not have a senator to co-sign the challenge - but they still tried.

(Truth be told, once Florida was that much in doubt, if the courts hadn't deigned to step in, the matter would've been in the hands of the Florida legislature, which was solidly GOP at that point... so while as it turned out I was quite unhappy with the results of 2000, they were correct. 2004 was the one that was more than likely stolen outright.)

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

If you don't agree with people who have different opinions than yours, just label them a nutjob.

That's what the DEMs did to just about everyone who appeared to support the GOP...

As for the "Obama isn't a natural-born-citizen" nutjobs, do you mean Philip J Berg? (http://obamacrimes.com) Isn't he a lifetime Democrat?

And if Obama didn't have anything to hide, why did he get the Governor of Hawaii to lock down the hospital records so that no one could look at them? Why hasn't he disclosed his college records? (perhaps because they list him as a foreign national so that he could get financial aid?)

But... I'm not bringing that up, just responding to your off-handed dismissal of the people as "nutjobs" just because you don't agree with them.

It's easy to call names... not so easy to actually prove your point.

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

What makes you think that he calls them "nutjobs" because he doesn't agree with them? Perhaps he has a whole host of reasons for using that label, and his disagreement with their position is merely a detail.

Textual communication... it is fraught with the opportunity for misunderstanding...

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

Just for curiosity's sake, what's happened in the past?

I will admit, it's been interesting to watch just how ... active Obama has been. It's always possible that *every* President-elect has been just as active and it just hasn't been reported nearly as avidly and thoroughly, but somehow I don't remember it that way.

Of course, we do have rather unique circumstances at the moment. It could be argued that Obama is, in many ways, acting as President ... and that Bush wants it that way. He certainly isn't doing much to earn the name!

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

Bush has a new job: Official Shoe Catcher.

[whipartist.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're nitpicking. You're not the only one.

Where did you get the term president-designate? A few weeks ago some friends and I discussed the exact same thing, and guessed that the correct term for his position was the presumed president-elect.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure. If you google for it, it comes up quite a bit; I heard it shortly after the election, and have assumed that it's the correct title. (The 'president designate' term is widely used to describe the person the Vice President designates to head the senate in his absence before that person's position is ratified by his peers, so it seems to be a common term.)

That depends on the register of your conversation

[shunra.livejournal.com]

If you are writing a legal brief, the technical difference between one status and another is crucial.

If, however, you are speaking in a conversational register, to laymen rather than lawyers, you would probably use one of the most common definitions of any such phrase. These common definitions are collected in dictionaries, which in English reflect (rather than dictate) common usage.

Here's the dictionary entry for "president-elect" (Random House Webster 1999): a president after election but before induction into office.
President-designate was not included in that dictionary, which implies that it was not in common usage.

That said, the distinction is meaningful. If you use it enough, American lexicographers might take note.

(There are languages where dictionaries are prescriptive rather hand descriptive - or at least, try to be. Popular uprisings can get quite amusing in such linguistic environments.)

[fallenpegasus]

It's an important nit.

And then there are the people who are already calling him "President Obama".


Probably the same people who would be "outraged" if the sides were reversed.

[nbarnes.livejournal.com]

I'd be tolerably outraged if a Democratic President were AWOL getting shoes tossed at him while the US economy experiences the biggest contraction since the Great Depression, and, oh yeah, there's those two wars we're losing. Under those circumstances, I'd be pretty blase about a Republican President-whatever taking some purely symbolic steps to reassure the nation and the world that come Jan 20, someone that wants the job will occupy the Oval Office.

Bush is the goddamn President of the United States of America. I'm pretty sure that that counts as 'a big boy who can take care of himself', even in this benighted age.

Nah, "President-Elect" is correct

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

You quoted the 1963 law. As far as I can figure out, that's the first time the use of the term was defined by law. So by law, Obama became the President-Elect as soon as the general election was over.

Before 1963, I think it was just a matter of convention, and different people had different opinions.

When I poked into this a few days ago I established that Bush was called the President-Elect by some news outlets (and not just Fox :-) immediately after the 2000 election, even before it was really settled.

See also http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/58935.html?thread=995895 .

. png

[woggie.livejournal.com]

The media is notorious for not caring about printing technicalities, or for that matter, even facts.

Question 1: What's the difference between a hacker and a cracker?
Question 2: Does the media care?
Question 3: Owing to the predominant lingo used by the media at large, does anyone apart from the techie crowd know there's such a difference?

[charleshaynes.livejournal.com]

"Is this just nit-picking? I mean, it's a matter of law, isn't it?"

Yes. Yes.